Lucinda shouldn't have been fired, although to be honest, she is probably far too intelligent and good for the job.

She is far more capable than Alex and Helene - I am actually at a loss to understand what on earth Helene is still doing there. Lucinda cannot be that disruptive a team player - she has been on 8 out of 10 winning teams. Alex and Helene both appeared to be completely incapable of running a team, and Alex is also incapable at working under anybody else.

I notice how Lucinda and Lee worked extremely well together UNTIL Alex joined their team - I would suggest that Alex is the disruptive one. Certainly, he is a snake in the grass.

Last night was a real let down for me. I don't think SAS ever had any intention of firing three people - keeping four in for the final was so obviously just a gimmick for the tv. Great episode up until that point.

Absolutely. Her constant reference to people taking a dislike to her appearance is her attempt to avoid facing that people didn't like her because of her competence and her character. She is performing a self-indulgent rationalisation of acrobatic logic to avoid facing the real issues, Lucinda doesn't do real.

She's still your favourite then?

Claire took the first task as leader, without even time at the house to learn about her team, so it's not surprising if it was the most chaotic. (She still led them to victory though). On the ice-cream task they did look and act like teams as far as I can tell.

Lucinda was not great even as leader, as shown by the fact that she lost half the time. On the ice-cream task her team members seemed, if anything, less well integrated. One half basically went off on their own as a sub-team, and seemed to think they'd won it without help from the other half. They also seemed to keep all the good leads for themselves and gave the bad leads to the other half. That's hardly what I'd call team spirit.

When Lucinda tried to integrate them with the others they didn't want to. And Lucinda wasn't strong enough to persuade them or even find out why they were reluctant. She allowed their complacency to continue, which is why they lost.

She did OK as leader on the wedding task, but by that time it was much easier. Most of the deadwood had gone, and she had Claire to sell for her, and Raef and Lee who are probably the easiest candidates in the show to get on with.


I think it was mostly luck. She didn't seem to contribute anything positive to the car task or the advert task, for example, or the laundry task or the photo task. We can argue about whether that was her fault or whether she was sidelined by the others, but that's irrelevant to the point here.

Where-as I think Claire was unlucky to be on the losing side so often. She had weaker project leaders. In fact in most cases where Lucinda won, the project leader of the opposite team got fired (6 out of 8 times). In most cases where Claire lost, her project leader was fired (5 of 6 times). Yet Sir Alan only fired the leader 6 times out of 10. Claire won 4 times and only only one occasion was the losing leader fired, so statistically she won against better leadership.

On Radio 5Live one of the interviewers said that he felt he had been unduly harsh on Lucinda and felt she had actually been the best person he'd interviewed.

It's certainly a good reason not to hire someone, if you think that sort of personality wouldn't fit in your organisation or is not the type of person you could have working for you.

I couldn't agree more.

Lucinda and Raef were lucky not to be on the losing team more often than they were.

Claire and Alex on the other hand have been unlucky to be on the losing team so often.